{ "id": 1366127, "name": "Sherrill Hardwood Lumber Company v. H. D. Glass Lumber Company", "name_abbreviation": "Sherrill Hardwood Lumber Co. v. H. D. Glass Lumber Co.", "decision_date": "1922-01-30", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "513", "last_page": "515", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "151 Ark. 513" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "95 Ark. 421", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1543617 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/95/0421-01" ] }, { "cite": "134 S. W. 942", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "97 Ark. 613", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1318786 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/97/0613-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 Ark. 422", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1511746 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/91/0422-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 Ark. 108", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1337055 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/110/0108-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 Ark. 135", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1152550 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/67/0135-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 Ark. 422", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1511746 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/91/0422-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 247, "char_count": 3544, "ocr_confidence": 0.489, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.044348983065606e-08, "percentile": 0.42477669547529606 }, "sha256": "5a3274d4a543491273d4099493a587c23f256cf5b36ced3eb6aa1a92668411ea", "simhash": "1:7d6454854a6758a4", "word_count": 610 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:18:51.844541+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Sherrill Hardwood Lumber Company v. H. D. Glass Lumber Company." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Hart, J.\n(after stating the facts). According to appellee\u2019s own testimony there should have been a verdict in favor of appellant. Appellant retained possession of the boilers, and there was no transfer of possession, actual or constructive. It is not claimed that there was any manual delivery of the boilers, and there is nothing from which it may be inferred that there was a symbolical delivery of them. Hence the sale was not completed. Harper v. State, 91 Ark. 422.\nThe boilers not having been delivered to appellee, the title did not pass to it and it cannot maintain replevin to recover possession of them. Carpenter v. Glass, 67 Ark. 135, and Jones v. Burks, 110 Ark. 108.\nIt follows that the court erred in directing a verdict for appellee as requested by it, and for that error the judgment must be reversed, and the cause will be remanded for a new trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "Hart, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "G. E. Garner, for appellant.", "No brief for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Sherrill Hardwood Lumber Company v. H. D. Glass Lumber Company.\nOpinion delivered January 30, 1922.\n1. Sales \u2014 necessity op delivery. \u2014 A sale of machinery was not completed where there was neither manual nor symbolical delivery.\n2. Replevin \u2014 right to maintain. \u2014 Where neither title nor the possession of machinery passed under a contract of sale, the purchaser was not entitled to maintain replevin against the seller.\nAppeal from \"White Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge;\nreversed.\nSTATEMENT OP PACTS.\nAppellee brought this action in replevin to recover from appellant two boilers of which it claims to be the owner.\nAppellant answered, denying the ownership in appellee and averring title to the boilers in itself.\nOn the 26th day of November, 1919, appellant wrote to appellee enclosing a circular of second-hand machinery for sale, together with a price list and stating that the machinery was all in good serviceable condition. Among the second-hand machinery listed for sale were two boilers priced at $500. Appellee telegraphed appellant that it would accept the two boilers for $500, and was sending a cheek for half of that amount. On January 5, 1920, appellee sent appellant a check for $250 to be applied on the purchase price of the two boilers. Appellant answered the letter, and stated that the boilers were listed at $500 each, and that it would hold the cheek for appellee.\nAccording to the testimony of appellee, it not only sent to appellant a check for $250 in part payment of the boilers, but it also paid $425 storage charges to obtain the release of a claim of some one in actual possession of the boilers.\nAccording to the testimony of appellant, the $250 was finally accepted by it as a payment on an entirely separate piece of machinery, and appellee so understood it. There never was any change of possession in the boilers or delivery of them to appellee.\nUnder the instructions of the court the jury returned a verdict for appellee, and from the judgment rendered appellant has duly prosecuted this appeal.\nG. E. Garner, for appellant.\nA contract of sale consists of an agreement between the parties, and in addition thereto a delivery of the chattel. 91 Ark. 422. Here there was no agreement and no delivery, and replevin would not lie. His remedy would have been for breach of contract, had there been a sale and symbolic delivery.\nThe offer to pay one-half only of the price for the boilers, even as construed by appellee, was a departure from the terms of sale, and invalidates the offer. 97 Ark. 613, 134 S. W. 942.\nThere was no binding contract of sale, as the parties never agreed on the proposition. 95 Ark. 421.\nNo brief for appellee." }, "file_name": "0513-01", "first_page_order": 539, "last_page_order": 541 }